Photo glitch or UFO?

Jose Caravaca asks if these photos, taken of Cadiz (circa 1850) by J. Laurent shows a UFO or is merely a photo-flaw of some sort.





The "thing" or "object" is reversed on the photos:



which you can see in these cropped closeups:



Your opinion is solicited, and if you are a photography buff, even more so.

How to analyze a UFO photo

Richard F. Haines provided an analysis of this UFO photo (for The Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 1, Number 1, 1987):

The analysis is thorough and a primer for those who hope to do analyses of UFO photos. You have to access the paper to see Mr. Haines' "exegesis" as it is extensive.

Mr. Haines also provided this caveat for those wishing to analyze UFO photos:

Photos can be evaluated without original negatives or the original photograph; it just takes photographic acumen and investigatory effort.

RR

The "lost" Trent photo

Attached are three enhancements. [of the “lost Trent photo”].

The first photo…is compensated for motion and focus. By compensating for motion on the object in question, the rest of the picture changed:



The second photo…is a crop and adjustments. After the adjustments were made, I reduced the size again (for email purposes). Notice on the left side of the object, there appears to be some type of vents or ribs in a dark outline:



The third photo is the same as the second one… [and] has brightness adjustment.

The second [object] in the picture is just there smaller, to show more contrast. The top appears to be an indentation, with a protrusion from the center. There is also one from the bottom. The object reminds me of a Roulette wheel and spindle. I'm not calling it that:



Unfortunately, there is also pixelation produced in the three pictures.

There are too many people that tend to pass photos off as being Photoshopped.

Also, unfortunately, there are too many times that people fake this type of thing.

I am not a debunker, but only my own skeptic. I am not an expert, but with working on the motion of the original picture, I would tend to believe the object in question is real because of the difference in motion between the background and the object.

Both appear to motion blur but in different perspectives.

As far as my belief, I would also have to call this inconclusive. It is too bad that you don't have a higher res pic. Hopefully, you can show that the negative came from the same roll.

Denver Page

The U.S. Air Force: Adamski/Heflin photos are fake!

Ray Palmer’s Flying Saucers magazine [February 1969, Issue 62] has some interesting copies of correspondence tied to Palmer’s “editorial” about William D. Clendenon’s attempt to interest the Air Force and Hughes Aircraft in his flying saucer prototype, which he, Clendenon, hoped to patent also.

Those thrusts by Clendenon led to missives from the Air Force to members of The United States Congress, in which Adamski’s (in)famous flying saucer photograph is mentioned along with the photographs of Rex Heflin.

Click HERE to see the Adamski reference.

And click HERE to see the Adamski and Heflin references. (Another click HERE provides the signatory of this letter.)

Also, as I implicate Hughes Aircraft in the Zamora/Socorro sighting of 1964, I’m including two missives from Palmer’s publication [Ibid] that indicate Hughes Aircraft was not immune from the flying saucer phenomenon, in practical, constructive ways:

HUGHES-1

HUGHES-2

(Note that, in the Heflin letter to Congressman Meeds, the Air Force writes that it never had possession of Adamski’s photograph nor Rex Heflin’s, which may be disputative to some Heflin supporters.)

RR